Does life make sense?

Some Guy in History wrote:If life ever makes nonsense, then know that the truest sense has already been made and it still didn't make sense without the nonsense.

I imagine that what you mean by "truest sense" is meaningfulness. If that is the case, this is also true for me too. How can we "know" something without it's opposite to compare it to ~~ if that made any sense to you.

If you could be anyone in history, who might it be?

NO, by truest sense; I meant the truest sense that could be made, as when they took it all apart and put it back together it all made sense except for the parts that made no sense. They even amped up being in the moment and made sense out of what a lot of nonsense was made out of accidentally, but no, they couldn't quite piece it all together to make sense beyond that until they purposefully began creating nonsense themselves.

Also, luckily, reality can only get so random. It's hard-lining 'make sense, motherfucker, make fucking sense.'

Also, unsurprisingly, when they took it (reality) all apart and put it back together, they were pretty sure they put it back together exactly as it came apart, but somehow wound up with extra parts. But, who hasn't had that happen?

“We hide in plain sight, and it works. Majestically. Everyone else can fuck the fuck off.”

Kathrina wrote:Randomness has not much to do with the question whether life makes sense. It is a fact that life is everywhere in the universe where it has got a chance. Our universe tends to life.

There is no evidence for this statement at all even if its premise is true

There is no evidence for what you are saying.

No wonder that you think in the following way:

surreptitious57 wrote:I totally endorse the principle of responsibility in whatever form it takes. And so I accept complete responsibility for everything I have ever thought or said or doneas an adult and blame no one or no thing for any of my failings whatever they may be. For the way my life has turned out is ultimately down to me and no one else

Sorry, but I think that you are hostile to life, sick of life, depressed, suicidal.

Of course, each and every life makes sense. It has purpose and goals too.

Now, for the answers of all whats which you asked, one needs to write a long book at least. Yes, i can briefly address your last question about the methodology of interpreting the life. Let me try.

To interpret or understand the meaning of life, one has to understand the life in the first place. All life forms are three layered entities. Simply put, we can name those as short term outer layer, medium term intermediate layer and lastly a very long term or perhaps everlasting inner layer. In other words, we can also say that every life form around us is not a single life but an amalgamation of three different life forms. Now, every layer of life has different purpose and goals which may or may not align.

Some Guy in History wrote:If life ever makes nonsense, then know that the truest sense has already been made and it still didn't make sense without the nonsense.

I imagine that what you mean by "truest sense" is meaningfulness. If that is the case, this is also true for me too. How can we "know" something without it's opposite to compare it to ~~ if that made any sense to you.

If you could be anyone in history, who might it be?

NO, by truest sense; I meant the truest sense that could be made, as when they took it all apart and put it back together it all made sense except for the parts that made no sense. They even amped up being in the moment and made sense out of what a lot of nonsense was made out of accidentally, but no, they couldn't quite piece it all together to make sense beyond that until they purposefully began creating nonsense themselves.

Also, luckily, reality can only get so random. It's hard-lining 'make sense, motherfucker, make fucking sense.'

Also, unsurprisingly, when they took it (reality) all apart and put it back together, they were pretty sure they put it back together exactly as it came apart, but somehow wound up with extra parts. But, who hasn't had that happen?

How could something be taken apart and then put back together again, without all of the pieces.Well, it could be but what then would that be called. Incomplete reality?

All we see of reality is what we want to see or what appears to be seen or what is still in the process of evolution.Can we see it as it actually is to be seen in its totality?

I don't know if that made sense. I'm just rambling along.

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”Viktor E. Frankl

It Felt Love

How did the roseEver open its heartAnd give to this worldAll its beauty?It felt the encouragement of lightAgainst its being,Otherwise,We all remainToo frightenedHafiz

Arcturus Descending wrote:How could something be taken apart and then put back together again, without all of the pieces.Well, it could be but what then would that be called. Incomplete reality?

All we see of reality is what we want to see or what appears to be seen or what is still in the process of evolution.Can we see it as it actually is to be seen in its totality?

I don't know if that made sense. I'm just rambling along.

I could explain, but its situational by context and I really dont feel like explaining it to somebody; anybody; who should be able to understand perfectly fine exactly what was meant and continues on in false philosophical discussion of vagueness and ambiguity that are now mementos of a recent past that will not be carrying on prominently into the future.

“We hide in plain sight, and it works. Majestically. Everyone else can fuck the fuck off.”

Of course, each and every life makes sense. It has purpose and goals too.

Now, for the answers of all whats which you asked, one needs to write a long book at least. Yes, i can briefly address your last question about the methodology of interpreting the life. Let me try.

To interpret or understand the meaning of life, one has to understand the life in the first place. All life forms are three layered entities. Simply put, we can name those as short term outer layer, medium term intermediate layer and lastly a very long term or perhaps everlasting inner layer. In other words, we can also say that every life form around us is not a single life but an amalgamation of three different life forms. Now, every layer of life has different purpose and goals which may or may not align.

with love, sanjay

Welcome back again, Zinnat.

Which purpose and which goal does each of the three layers have according to you?

Which purpose and which goal does each of the three layers have according to you?

Thanks for welcome.

As i said before, the details of answers may be quite long, very very long. Having said that, the broad methodology of knowing the details can be described briefly.

Although there may be some rare exceptions, but as thumb rule the purpose of the outermost and intermediate layers used to be almost the same. And, that is to take a serious note of one's circumstances and and try to honestly react to those to the best of his/her abilities. That is all. Nothing much else is required and we are almost done with the purpose and goal of above mentioned two layers. But, that applies to human life forms only. All other life forms need not to make any such conscious effort. They just have to live their lives and their purpose would be fulfilled automatically.

But, the goal of the innermost layer is entirely different, which is go forever beyond to the matrix of two outer layers. More often than not, or if anyone seriously tries to achieving the goal of the innermost layer, that goal comes in the way of fulfilling the purpose of two other layers. This contradiction is the very puzzle of human life. One more very important point is worth mentioning here. Humans have to fulfill the purpose of two outer layers at any cost. They cannot bypass that and carry on addressing the purpose of the innermost layer only. That is precisely why such a balanced approach is required in human life, where one can address both of the purposes according to one's circumstances and wisdom/abilities.

One can also carry on addressing the purpose of two outer layers only. There is no apparent/immediate problem in that either. A human life can be lived or passed successfully only with that. But, the reality is that in the end each and everyone has to achieve the goal of their innermost layer also. That is the one and only ultimate goal, while all other goals are intermediate only.

Having said that, one also cannot jump the gun while addressing this ultimate goal. That is not the way to do it. It is a very slow and grinding process, which takes its own course and time. And, while calculating this time, the span of a human life is very minuscule. The ideal way is to first recognize, accept and remember this reality always and put some effort into it whatever more or less time one can spare from addressing the other goals. But, one must remember that there would be no immediate returns or achievements in this process. It would take years or rather decades to take one step in that journey.

As far i am able to understand about all this from my long personal experience and also looking at various other people, perhaps journey towards this third goal is not meant for everyone, or rather everyone is not ready for it. Although all are eligible but not ready enough to step in. I am not sure but perhaps that readiness comes only after achieving some goals of prescribed for two outer layers. However, there is no harm in initiating the process for anyone at any time. It also looks to me that when becomes ready enough to step in, he/she is shown the way in one way or other.

Which purpose and which goal does each of the three layers have according to you?

Thanks for welcome.

As i said before, the details of answers may be quite long, very very long. Having said that, the broad methodology of knowing the details can be described briefly.

Although there may be some rare exceptions, but as thumb rule the purpose of the outermost and intermediate layers used to be almost the same. And, that is to take a serious note of one's circumstances and and try to honestly react to those to the best of his/her abilities. That is all. Nothing much else is required and we are almost done with the purpose and goal of above mentioned two layers. But, that applies to human life forms only. All other life forms need not to make any such conscious effort. They just have to live their lives and their purpose would be fulfilled automatically.

But, the goal of the innermost layer is entirely different, which is go forever beyond to the matrix of two outer layers. More often than not, or if anyone seriously tries to achieving the goal of the innermost layer, that goal comes in the way of fulfilling the purpose of two other layers. This contradiction is the very puzzle of human life. One more very important point is worth mentioning here. Humans have to fulfill the purpose of two outer layers at any cost. They cannot bypass that and carry on addressing the purpose of the innermost layer only. That is precisely why such a balanced approach is required in human life, where one can address both of the purposes according to one's circumstances and wisdom/abilities.

One can also carry on addressing the purpose of two outer layers only. There is no apparent/immediate problem in that either. A human life can be lived or passed successfully only with that. But, the reality is that in the end each and everyone has to achieve the goal of their innermost layer also. That is the one and only ultimate goal, while all other goals are intermediate only.

Having said that, one also cannot jump the gun while addressing this ultimate goal. That is not the way to do it. It is a very slow and grinding process, which takes its own course and time. And, while calculating this time, the span of a human life is very minuscule. The ideal way is to first recognize, accept and remember this reality always and put some effort into it whatever more or less time one can spare from addressing the other goals. But, one must remember that there would be no immediate returns or achievements in this process. It would take years or rather decades to take one step in that journey.

As far i am able to understand about all this from my long personal experience and also looking at various other people, perhaps journey towards this third goal is not meant for everyone, or rather everyone is not ready for it. Although all are eligible but not ready enough to step in. I am not sure but perhaps that readiness comes only after achieving some goals of prescribed for two outer layers. However, there is no harm in initiating the process for anyone at any time. It also looks to me that when becomes ready enough to step in, he/she is shown the way in one way or other.

with love,sanjay

Are you saying that there is merely one goal actually, so that this one is the goal of all three layers?

Arminius wrote:Are you saying that there is merely one goal actually, so that this one is the goal of all three layers?

Arminius,

Go through my post again.

The ultimate goal is meant for the innermost layer only but as that layer is everlasting thus its goal becomes a kind of binding to other two layers also. But, one has to achieve the goals of two outer layers in the first place before attempting for the ultimate one. One cannot go directly at the third stage, as i said before, no bypassing.

Let me put in another way to explain my point. Say, a 6-7 years child's ultimate goal is to becoming an expert surgeon. We all know that he has to study a lot of medical science before that. And, even before studying medical sciences, he would have to acquire many other basic knowledge or skills like and reading, writing and so forth. Surgery is not merely a knife-work. It takes more that two decades of hard effort in studying to know how to operate a patient.

Now, a child may ask why he cannot become a surgeon merely by learning knife skills. Why he would have to even learn reading or writing in the first place!

zinnat wrote:The ultimate goal is meant for the innermost layer only but as that layer is everlasting thus its goal becomes a kind of binding to other two layers also. But, one has to achieve the goals of two outer layers in the first place before attempting for the ultimate one. One cannot go directly at the third stage, as i said before, no bypassing.

Mictlantecuhtli wrote:The universe is chaotic and unstable therefore life also is chaotic and unstable.

Life isn't chaotic.

Define life as YOU mean it then.

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of life

plural livesplay \ˈlīvz\

1a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead bodyb : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beingsc : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism (see metabolism 1), growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Biophysicists have commented that living things function on negative entropy. According to them, life is a member of the class of phenomena that are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form.

Spoken in Merriam-Webster/s terms, do you think that those human beings who have experienced Hurricanes Harvey and Irma would say that Life ~~ their Life ~~ has not become chaotic? How would you measure things about now ~~ entropy or negative entropy?

Unless you see life from rose-colored glasses, you will see that Life IS chaotic, may be chaotic, can easily turn chaotic, life DOES turn on a dime.

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”Viktor E. Frankl

It Felt Love

How did the roseEver open its heartAnd give to this worldAll its beauty?It felt the encouragement of lightAgainst its being,Otherwise,We all remainToo frightenedHafiz

Kathrina wrote:Biophysicists have commented that living things function on negative entropy. According to them, life is a member of the class of phenomena that are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form.

"Negative entropy" can also be interpreted as "negative chaos".

Arcturus Descending wrote:Spoken in Merriam-Webster/s terms, do you think that those human beings who have experienced Hurricanes Harvey and Irma would say that Life ~~ their Life ~~ has not become chaotic? How would you measure things about now ~~ entropy or negative entropy?

Unless you see life from rose-colored glasses, you will see that Life IS chaotic, may be chaotic, can easily turn chaotic, life DOES turn on a dime.

I was referring to thermodynamics.

Kathrina wrote:Biophysicists have commented that living things function on negative entropy. According to them, life is a member of the class of phenomena that are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form.

In German it is said „Leben hat Sinn“ ("life has sense"), not „Leben macht Sinn“ ("life makes sense"). Though meanwhile and unfortunately, the latter is also possible.

Meno_ wrote:Otherwise, have a nice vacation in Spain, and remember, The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain

Thank you.

* The Spain in the rain falls plainly in the main.

Okay.

I will tell this to the Spaniards. _____________________________

By the way: From where did you get the information that I am going to go to Spain again (with rain in the main plain ... and so on)? From here?

Got it there blogs up in this forum in the communication with Zinnat The distinction in usage pertaining to meaning from ' life has sense' and ' life makes sense'' is interesting, and revolves around two orbits. One ' in the sense' of sensibility-in the former, and two in the perceivable coherence of what Russell called "sense data" for intelligibility.

There is a novel out there, which I haven't read, named ' Sense and Sensibility, I think by a woman by the name of Jane Austen, that may allude to the difference.

When You imply a regret for the use of the conjuctive 'makes' , instead of 'has', shows a German geneologocal tenet holding for praxis rather then process. That ,in turn implies the philosophical value underlying differance.

The plain in rain falls mainly in Spain? Naaaaaaaa.Again have a good one.